alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40892

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2579-ALL

----------------------------------------------------------------

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Michael Fisher appeals his sentence following his conviction of aliensmuggling for profit. He contends that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level

because he recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. 

The district court did not err by adjusting Fisher’s offense level. Fisher carried a

passenger in a cargo compartment underneath the floorboard of the sleeper section of his tractortrailer that was not designed to hold people. Moreover, Fisher was deliberately ignorant of the
2

hiding positions of his passengers. See United States v. Rodriguez-Mesa, 443 F.3d 397, 403 (5th

Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015354EN.01000801.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-309/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - National legislation - Issue and renewal of a residence permit - Condition - Obligatory financial contribution - Amount eight times higher than that for obtaining a national identity card - Infringement of the principles of Directive 2003/109/EC))

(2015/C 354/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA)

Applicants:

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, as amended by Directive 2011/51/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a residence permit in the Member State concerned, to pay a fee which varies in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200, inasmuch as such a fee is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by that directive and is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

1

---
No. 10-7070.

#### Anthony C. Littrell, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1207, 131 S. Ct. 1064,

178 L. Ed. 2d 879,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1047.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 621, 178 L. Ed. 2d 451, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8988.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                    117,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               249,574
<PP&E>                                         192,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 491,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,116
<BONDS>                                        126,849
<COMMON>                                        18,522
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     209,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   491,060
<SALES>                                        351,587<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,587
<CGS>                                          262,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
<FN>
<F1>This amount is not disclosed in the financial statements and thus a value of
zero has been shown for purposes of this financial data schedule.
<F2>These line items include certain amounts related to non-tangible products
(i.e.,) services, however, since the amounts related to services are not
disclosed inthe financial statements, the total revenue and CGS figures,
respectively, have been shown on these line items for purposes of this
financial data schedule.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17739]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Deletion to the Procurement List; Correction

    In the document appearing on page 30706 FR Doc. 98-14999, in the 
issue of June 5, 1998, in the second column, a Painting Service, 
McClellan Air Force Base, California, is listed as deleted from the 
Procurement List, effective July 6, 1998. The Committee voted to delete 
this service on information that the facility was closing and that this 
service would no longer be required. Since the June 5, 1998 deletion 
notice, the Air Force has indicated that it still requires this 
service.
    Accordingly, the notice of June 5, 1998 referenced above is 
corrected to remove Painting Service, McClellan Air Force Base, 
California from the list of services deleted from the Procurement List.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 98-17739 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
No. 10-6242.

#### Gregory J. Burks, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1141, 131 S. Ct. 903,

178 L. Ed. 2d 759,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 366.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 548.
No. 10-1332.

#### RSL Communications PLC, by Michael John Andrew Jervis and Steven Anthony Pearson, as the Joint Administrators, Petitioners v. Nesim Bildirici, et al.

565 U.S. 816, 132 S. Ct. 97,

181 L. Ed. 2d 25,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6785.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 337.
No. 10-6595.

#### Cleve Foster, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1111, 131 S. Ct. 822,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9741.

178 L. Ed. 2d 562,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 598.
H. R. 3005 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 13308 

Midland Road in Poway, California, as the ‘‘Ray Chavez Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RAY CHAVEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 13308 Midland Road in Poway, California, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Ray Chavez Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Ray Chavez Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 10-10507.

#### Theodore O. Wilson, Petitioner v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.

565 U.S. 839, 132 S. Ct. 148,

181 L. Ed. 2d 65,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6163.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2014235EN.01003301.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/33

---

Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

(Case T-500/13) (1)

1

2014/C 235/44

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
# C_2013325EN.01003903.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/39

---

Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-443/13)

2013/C 325/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.

1

---
#### *Birrueta, Respondent, v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., Petitioner,*

No. 92215-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32210-6-III, July 9, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 831. *Granted*February 10, 2016.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-61187

Summary Calendar

ABDUL KARIM,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A79 011 669)

--------------------

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Abdul Karim, a native and citizen of Pakistan,

appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals ‘(BIA) denial of his

motion for reconsideration of his removal proceedings. Karim

argues that the BIA erred when it denied his motion for

reconsideration, in which he sought an adjustment of status based

on a pending visa petition for alien worker status. 

We apply an abuse of discretion standard when we review

motions to reconsider immigration proceedings. Singh v. Gonzales,

436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its
2

discretion in denying Karim’s motion for reconsideration, as the

record reflects that Karim had not supplied the BIA with the

requisite documentation to obtain an adjustment of status. See

United States v. Ryan-Webster, 363 F.3d 353, 355 (4th Cir. 2003);

8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b), 1255(a).

Karim contends that his due process rights were violated

because the BIA rejected his eligibility for an adjustment of

status. We review due process challenges arising from deportation

proceedings de novo. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.

1997). Given Karim’s failure to comply with the statutory

prerequisites for obtaining adjustment of status on his alien

worker petition, he cannot show that his constitutional rights were

violated by the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider his

removal proceedings. See Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475

(5th Cir. 2004). 

Karim has filed a motion to remand his petition to the BIA for

reconsideration based on the approval of his I-140 petition.

Although Karim has also attached an I-485 form, he fails to provide

any evidence that the form has been approved. The BIA was not

privy to these documents, and, moreover, Karim still has not

satisfied the final requisite steps for obtaining adjustment of

status. See Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d at 355-56.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR REMAND DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17865]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 7, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Personnel Action. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, Telephone 703-518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-17865 Filed 6-30-98; 5:01 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
No. 10-632.

#### In re William Windsor, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1177, 131 S. Ct. 1007,

178 L. Ed. 2d 857,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 624,

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
**DoDAAD Process Review Committee (PRC) AGENDA**

**September 25, 2014**

**0830 Start**

**Location: LMI (*MCC3 – 2nd Floor)***

**As of: September 23, 2014, 0930**

**DEFENSE CONNECT ONLINE (DCO)**

Defense Connect Online (DCO) will be used to provide real-time viewing on your computer screen of the presentations for those participants who are dialing into the meeting.  Access to DCO is through your web browser, and no special software is required.  

When you first connect, you will want to select the “guest” login option.  The only information required is your name.  This meeting has been setup as a “private meeting”, so after you click on the link below you will be placed in a wait state until the presenter accepts your request. You will be granted the option of selecting “full screen” for viewing, which should be selected. If you have any problems, we can walk you through the process on the phone via the call in number 703-767-5141. The link is:  https://connect.dco.dod.mil/dodaad

**PRC Briefings**

**AGENDA ITEMS****

***NOTE:  All ADCs and PDCs can be found on the DLA Logistic Management Standards******website******.***

1. **Welcome (0830)**

2. **PRC 101 and Who We Are**

3. **DoDAAD PRC Webpage**

4. **What’s Happened Since Last PRC**

5. **DoDAAD Management:  a CSP Responsibility***

a. **DoDAAC Rejects for Interfund Bills**

b. **DoDAAD Reports**

c. **Service Unique Processing Rules, COMMRIs & Discrete Data**

d. **Functional Monitors**

e. **DoDAAD Output; Answering OSD’s Data Call**

f. **DoDAAD Data Security**

6. **Welcome DPAP (1300)***

7. **PDC 1116 – Implementing the Policy Change for Contractor DoDAAC to be Unique to a Contract Number**

8. **PDC 1148 – Permanent DoDAACs**

9. **Wrap Up (1630)**

*** OUSD DPAP and SCI will be joining the afternoon session to discuss PDCs 1116 and 1148.  We will break for lunch during Item 5 discussions, and return at 1300 to address issues that concern DPAP.  Once we conclude with DPAP’s equities, we will conclude the remaining agenda issues of Item 5.**

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,524
<PP&E>                                           1,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,092
<BONDS>                                            980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,873
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    116
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 72
<DISCONTINUED>                                     101
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014039EN.01002102.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/21

---

Action brought on 13 November 2013 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)

(Case T-595/13)

2014/C 39/36

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Korea)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1);

| — | Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘compressor technology’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 7420151

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: LG Electronics, Inc.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ and ‘KOMPRESSOR’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---